Live data from Hacker News

Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

arxiv.org

11–20 of 270 posts

Re: Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

#11

The fun question is whether human cognition similarly lacks deep insights or said theory of mind. I perceive a moving of the goalposts as machine intelligence improves. Once we'd have been happy with smarter than an especially stupid person, now I think we're aiming at smarter than the smartest person.

I perceive a moving of the goalposts as machine intelligence improves.

We get a better and better idea of what this hazy term "intelligence" means as we DIY tinker with making our own new ones.

Once we'd have been happy with smarter than an especially stupid person, now I think we're aiming at smarter than the smartest person.

We're going to get there sooner than we think. When we get there, we will have new things to regret in ways we'd never thought of before.

Re: Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

#13

The fun question is whether human cognition similarly lacks deep insights or said theory of mind. I perceive a moving of the goalposts as machine intelligence improves. Once we'd have been happy with smarter than an especially stupid person, now I think we're aiming at smarter than the smartest person.

I perceive a moving of the goalposts as machine intelligence improves. We get a better and better idea of what this hazy term "intelligence" means as we DIY tinker with making our own new ones. Once we'd have been happy with smarter than an especially stupid person, now I think we're aiming at smarter than the smartest person. We're going to get there sooner than we think. When we get there, we will have new things t…

> We're going to get there sooner than we think. When we get there, we will have new things to regret in ways we'd never thought of before.

I'll take that. My own expectation is I'll have a few minutes-to-months to say "I told you so".

Re: Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

#16

Do humans have that as well ? I read studies that suggest we make up consciousness a half second after something happened.

We don't "make up" consciousness, but yes, there is a processing latency of around 250-300ms.

I think they may be referring to the principle task that consciousness serves in humans, which is to rationalize decisions we've already made subconsciously to other people so they will help us.

The conscious "why" comes after the decision. In that sense it's exactly the kind of bullshit machine that LLMs are.

Re: Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

#17

The fun question is whether human cognition similarly lacks deep insights or said theory of mind. I perceive a moving of the goalposts as machine intelligence improves. Once we'd have been happy with smarter than an especially stupid person, now I think we're aiming at smarter than the smartest person.

I think it has to do with the notion that many (most?) people who could hone, and employ, respectable cognitive skills neglect or refuse to do so in favor of putting down other species and LLMs. They point to the human exemplars and think having the same DNA template elevates them to that level. They have to be superior even if it means applying ridiculous biases around intelligence.

Re: Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

#18

Do humans have that as well ? I read studies that suggest we make up consciousness a half second after something happened.

Bad liars seem to have difficulty with theory of mind. Sometimes ChatGPT comes across somewhat like this.

Alternately good liars probably have a solid theory of mind. You need to tell the other person what they are likely to believe so you need to know how they think.

Re: Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

#19
In Buddhism there’s the idea that our core self is awareness, which is silent - it doesn’t think in a perceptible way, it doesn’t feel in a visceral way, but it underpins thought and feeling, and is greatly impacted by it. A large part of meditation and “release of suffering” is learning to let your awareness lead your thinking rather than your thinking lead your awareness.

To be clear, I think this is in fact a correct assessment of the architecture of intelligence. You can suspend thought and still function throughout your day in all ways. Discursive thought is entirely unnecessary, but it is often helpful for planning.

My observation of LLMs in such a construction of intelligence is they are entirely the thinking mind - verbal, articulate, but unmoored. There is no, for lack of a better word, “soul,” or that internal awareness that underpins that discursive thinking mind. And because that underlying awareness is non articulate and not directly observable by our thinking and feeling mind, we really don’t understand it or have a science about it. To that end, it’s really hard to pin specifically what is missing in LLMs because we don’t really understand ourselves beyond our observable thinking and emotive minds.

I look at what we are doing with LLMs and adjacent technologies and I wonder if this is sufficient, and building an AGI is perhaps not nearly as useful as we might think, if what we mean is build an awareness. Power tools of the thinking mind are amazingly powerful. Agency and awareness - to what end?

And once we do build an awareness, can we continue to consider it a tool?

Re: Large language models lack deep insights or a theory of mind

#20

Another paper in a long series that confuses "our tests against currently available LLMs tuned for specific tasks found that they didn't perform well on our task" with "LLMs are architecturally unsuitable for our task".

There is no reason to believe (evidence) that any meaning ascribed to an LLM's utterances comes from the LLM rather than being pareidolia.

If you've found some, please let everyone know.

Post reply on HN